USA and Iran War - What happens next and why an agreement is so hard to grasp
The Iran-US Memorandum of Understanding: Can a Fragile Framework Deliver Lasting Peace?
By Andrea Conrado de Souza
Following weeks of military escalation, reports of a possible Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Iran and the United States have generated cautious optimism. Yet, based on the information publicly available, the framework appears to leave many of the fundamental issues unresolved.
In my view, one of the principal weaknesses of the reported MOU is that it appears to outline broad objectives without clearly defining how either side would implement or verify its commitments. Durable agreements between long-standing adversaries depend not only on political intent but also on detailed implementation mechanisms, timelines, verification procedures, and mutual confidence-building measures.
Just as the world was concluding another global sporting celebration-the FIFA Club World Cup, an event that brought nations together in a spirit of competition and shared experience-headlines once again shifted to the Middle East. Reports of Iranian missile attacks targeting U.S. military facilities in neighboring countries, followed by U.S. military responses, reminded the international community how quickly regional crises can escalate into broader strategic confrontations.
For analysts following these events, there remains far more uncertainty than certainty. Much of what reaches the public consists of official statements, media reports, and limited imagery, while the full diplomatic picture often remains behind closed doors.
The consequences, however, are tangible. Global energy markets reacted with increased volatility, fuel prices came under pressure, and renewed concerns emerged regarding the security of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz-one of the world's most important energy corridors. Even the perception of prolonged instability can have immediate economic consequences far beyond the region.
The most difficult obstacle remains the nuclear issue and Iran's uranium enrichment program.
Recent open-source reporting and commercially available satellite imagery have prompted renewed discussion about activity at Iranian nuclear-related sites. While interpretations vary and require careful verification, such reports reinforce the perception that the nuclear issue remains unresolved. At the same time, successive U.S. administrations have consistently maintained that any durable agreement would require strong verification measures to ensure that Iran's nuclear activities remain exclusively peaceful.
Designing such a verification regime is extraordinarily complex. It would require robust international inspections, continuous monitoring, clear enforcement mechanisms, and sufficient political trust-elements that have proven difficult to sustain over decades of negotiations. Whether Iran would be willing to accept verification measures that it views as compromising its sovereignty remains one of the central questions facing any future agreement.
Another challenge lies in balancing incentives.
Public discussion surrounding possible diplomatic arrangements has included proposals ranging from sanctions relief and access to previously restricted financial assets to broader economic assistance aimed at supporting Iran's economy. Frozen Iranian assets have been estimated at more than $100 billion globally, although estimates vary depending on the source and the status of individual accounts. Whether or not such measures are ultimately adopted, any agreement will inevitably be judged by whether both sides perceive the benefits and obligations as balanced. However, many analysts argue that Iran's strategic objectives extend beyond economic considerations alone.
From Washington's perspective, the principal strategic objective has consistently been preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. From Tehran's perspective, sanctions relief, economic recovery, and international reintegration have remained central priorities. At the same time, Iran has consistently maintained that its uranium enrichment program is a sovereign right under international law, making that issue one of the most difficult aspects of any negotiation.
Unless both parties believe the agreement adequately addresses their core interests, implementation is likely to remain politically fragile.
Ultimately, military escalation alone is unlikely to produce a sustainable political settlement.
History demonstrates that wars often deepen mistrust, strengthen hard-line positions, and reduce political space for compromise. Every additional exchange of force increases the risk of retaliation, making diplomacy progressively more difficult.
A lasting agreement will require more than military deterrence. It will require sustained diplomacy, direct communication, credible verification mechanisms, regional engagement, and political willingness on both sides to manage disagreements before they escalate into conflict.
Without those elements, any memorandum-regardless of how well intentioned-risks becoming another temporary pause in a confrontation that has defined U.S.-Iran relations for more than four decades.
When cultural, ideological, and political values differ so profoundly, can a sustainable path toward a peaceful relationship between the two nations truly be achieved?
